llaguardia81

After tonight, I don't ever wanna hear Aaron Rodgers mentioned in the same sentence as Drew Brees. Rodgers showed tonight why they got it right by not putting him on that 100 year QB list. At least Drew was able to go toe to toe with the Niners. Rodgers is one of the most overrated QBs to play the game. The Packers are who we thought they were.

CHA_CHING

10 years from now, people are going to look back at the 2010s and ask - WTF!? Why was Rodgers ever compared to Manning, Brady and Brees through this decade?.

Rodgers had a very brief peak period in his career during 2011 to 2014 (his prime) where he was a top 3 QB. His prime was dominant and amazing at a high level but it came crashing down hard after that. If he didn't have a ring and have it playing for GB, no one would give him the benefit of a doubt and praise he always gets. Most of the praise he gets is from people stuck in the past unable to realize how badly he's regressed since 2014.

Rodgers hasn't had the longevity to continue playing at a high level in his latter years like Brady, Brees and Manning have. All 3 of those guys had their dominant peak primes but managed to sustain a level of dominance even after their primes. I used to hammer this on the other Saints board when it came up; Rodgers is an average QB and has been for the past 5 years, who leans entirely on his TD/INT ratio which is at a historic, all time high level. The whole narrative about Rodgers being the GOAT, all hinges on the TD/INT ratio stat. By this logic of using the TD/INT ratio to pick a QB as the GOAT, I guess Steve Young was the GOAT before Rodgers since he retired with the all time best TD/INT ratio back in 1999, before Rodgers came around.

The TD/INT ratio is a deceiving stat and it's really not a good stat to judge QBs by on a historical scale. Rodgers is probably the greatest example ever of why you shouldn't judge QBs on TD/INT ratio cause in his case, it's incredibly flawed. Between 2015 to 2018, Green Bay ranked in the bottom 4 on first down percentage. They ranked worse than the Browns who finished 1-31 in that time span. Not a lot of people talked about this, cause the counter argument was to point at the number of TD passes Rodgers had, despite how badly they ranked in first down percentage. The reason his TD/INT ratio is so impressive is because when the Pack get down in the red zone, it becomes the Aaron Rodgers show. In 2016 (the "run the table" year), he padded his stats to the point he had 40+ TDs and on paper, it looked like a dominant season for him until you broke down every other stat category and saw how mediocre he was in that year. Of those 40+ TDs, over half of them came from within the 5 yard range to the end zone, cause the Packers refused to just run the ball at the goal line.

Another reason his TD/INT ratio is inflated is because Rodgers enjoys eating up sacks and throwing the ball out of bounds, rather than trying to force it down field into tight windows. Last year when he broke the record for most passes without an INT, he also broke the record for most throwaways. This past year, he ranked in the top 3 on throwaways. Even during his prime, the sacks were a problem. He will hold onto the ball too long and rather than try to make a play, just take the sack. This alone, explains why he ranks so badly on comeback wins. This year he got a big comeback win vs the Lions on a Monday night game where they had some horrible officiating that pretty much handed them the game. Oh yeah that's another thing, you guys want to talk refs and stuff? GB got more favorable calls this past year than any other team. They led the league in PI calls and free plays by a wide margin. It's even joked about how Rodgers is "dominant at free plays" where flags are drawn but the refs give them the free play anyway. If it was any other QB, the whistle is blown and the play is called dead.

I could also go into another stat category, which is sack percentage, but I don't think I have to go into details on this one. If you watch Rodgers play, you know he likes to take a lot of sacks. Rodgers actually ranks as one of the worst QBs in taking sacks, and he has to take those sacks as well as the throwaways to protect that stupid TD/INT ratio.

I don't even like comparing Rodgers to Brees cause it's not even close, since Rodgers is not statistically dominant in anything but his precious TD/INT ratio. Rodgers IMO is the anti-Peyton Manning. Between 2003 to 2005; Manning threw more first downs than Rodgers has his entire career. Even after 2019, this stat remains true. It is one example of Manning's statistical dominance and how Rodgers really shouldn't have his name written in the same sentence as him. Brees on the other hand, can be compared pretty easily to Manning in stats like sack avoidance. Both Brees and Brady are pretty similar in their statistical dominance across all stat categories.

I've seen Packers fans for years compare Rodgers to Favre. If you're analyzing them on the perspective of TD/INT ratio, then Rodgers comes out looking amazingly better than Favre since Favre was known for being a gunslinger and racking up INTs. However, outside of that stupid TD/INT ratio that people prop up over Rodgers, Favre ranks better in every category including ANY/A yardage; first down percentage, sack avoid rate and especially comebacks. You could also add in the fact that Favre at ages 28 (2007) and 40 (2009) put up MVP caliber seasons, while Rodgers is 36 and hasn't had a dominant season since he was 31. Yes, I would take Favre over Rodgers. Favre retired 2-3 in the NFC title game while Rodgers tonight became 1-3. Say what you will about the old gunslinger, but at least he got the Packers back to the SB. Rodgers couldn't even do that when they had a 15-1 record. (MVP, 15-1 at home in the playoffs and get crushed by a 9-7 Giants team.)

In terms of playoffs though, Rodgers and Brees (as well as Manning) have a pretty similar playoff record at this point. Only difference is, Brees' playoff losses are always close and winnable games, where you can pinpoint certain plays and situations where if he had some better luck, his team would've won. Brees has usually played well enough to win in these close losses; including the comebacks vs SF in 2011 and Minnesota in 2017. Brees has ended most of these playoff losses with strong 4th quarter performances, hence why the games were close and decided at the end.

Rodgers on the other hand, don't have comebacks. When his teams lose in the playoffs, they usually get blown the **** out and he pads his stats in garbage time with a few TDs and pretty numbers that leads to all his defenders yelling that it's everyone else's fault but his.

One last thing, I have never seen a QB get more excuses than Rodgers, ever....

Favre, Marino and Manning were always labeled "choke artists"...
Brees is always labeled a "stat padder"...
Brady is always labeled a "cheater"...

Rodgers??? Gets every excuse in the book. No one ever wants to blame golden boy. It's always the coach's fault, the defense, the running backs, the wide receivers... No one will ever blame him, like when the Packers blew that 16-0 lead in the NFCCG in 2014 when he was MVP and played so bad that Russell Wilson in his career worst game, still managed to outplay him by the end of that game.

halloween 65

Yeah, Ole Pretty Boy looked bad last night. I loved every second of his anguish. He should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Favre. Favre was a man's man at the qb. position.

vpheughan

Rodgers enjoys eating up sacks and throwing the ball out of bounds, rather than trying to force it down field into tight windows.

Interesting how not "FORCING" the ball and "THROWING IT OUT OF BOUNDS" to avoid an INT makes a QB "bad".

73Saint

Yet, he still found a way to insult McCarthy by saying something to the effect of finally having fun again. I can't believe I'm saying this but next time Dallas plays Green Bay I'll be rooting for the Cowboys!

Rugby Saint II

But Brees didn't make the top 100 either. Just sayin'. Not that it means anything.

vpheughan

I wonder how many "stomping fits" Danica had during the game?

SaintsBro

State Farm got their money's worth

TheOak

QB vs QB is NFL hype marketing. No two QBs are even on the field playing at the same time. (Well. with the exception of Taysom Hill +who ever is under center lol)

Until two QBs are in the octagon I dont want to hear bull**** about QB vs QB.

AsylumGuido

Exactly. They were discussing this same player stat versus player stat comparison a couple of days ago on NFL Radio. It was dealing with the use of analytics (case being Cleveland) in football as opposed to baseball. They were saying that there are far too many moving pieces to truly draw results from certain numbers. QB's are working with different lines and different schemes against different defenses in different conditions with different downs and different distances and different targets, etc.